Funding for development wasn’t released until late 80’s and the project was frozen in 1991-1992 due to the balance of payment crisis at the time. Development therefore did not start until the 1989-1991 period.

Balance of payment should not effect this project in any way as it is Indigenous.

>25 July 1994 Avweek

boy thats trawling the depths even for yahoo25 🙂

looking forward to old articles from the 1980s as historical curiosity if you have it.

HAL/ADA/DRDO being Govt run have public disclosures of budgets. The $4b figure you give is probably more than HAL-ADA entire
R&D budget in the last decade 🙂

This one is for you. LCA is not one time and is not making sense because the money put up in the project is not enough to produce the desire specification. I will put up the whole project cost at $15B to successful.

Definition of Indian Combat Aircraft To Follow Mid-Year Selection of Engine

19 May 1986
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Pg. 72
Vol. 124, No. 20
English

Bangalore — New Indian Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) program is expected to move into full definition phase following a mid-year choice of engines. The Indian Defense Ministry’s goal is to have the first prototype flying within four years and service with the country’s air force is planned by the mid-1990s.

Engines under consideration are the Turbo-Union RB. 199 Stage B and the General Electric F404-RM12 turbofans, according to Dr. Kota Harinarayan, LCA program director at the Defense Ministry’s Aeronautical Development Agency here. Turbo-Union Engine The RB. 199 Stage B engine is a new version with more thrust than the RB. 199-04 engine being fitted into the latest versions of the Panavia Tornado multirole combat aircraft. Turbo-Union has not as yet committed the engine to full-scale development, but a decision is expected within the next few months.

An Indian-designed engine program also has been initiated and could provide a later engine to be retrofitted into the aircraft.

The LCA was conceived as a battlefield air superiority fighter with a secondary mission of close support. It is expected to replace several of the aircraft types in the Indian air force inventory, reduce costs through standardization and allow the number of aircraft to be cut because of increased capability.

There have been reports that India also has evaluated the possibility of acquiring an off-the-shelf fighter from abroad to fulfill basically the same mission, with the Soviet MiG-29 named as the aircraft under consideration (AW&ST June 17, 1985, p. 61).

”No one outside the Ministry of Defense really knows what the plans are regarding the MiG-29,” one European aerospace company official said.

There are, however, strong pressures to keep the LCA program alive.

”We have a well-established aerospace industry,” one official said. ”The LCA will not only meet the requirements of our own air force, but it will help keep the industry up to the standards of contemporary technology.”

Four concept evaluation and feasibility studies were done on the LCA–one each by British Aerospace, Dornier and Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm and one in India by Hindustan Aeronautics, Ltd., and various Indian government research establishments.

Data from all of these were used in the final feasibility study, which has been completed. This feasibility study program has allowed the Indian air force to issue a definitive Air Staff Requirement and the program is marking time until completion of the engine selection process, which is being done by the Defense Ministry in New Delhi.

General layout of the airframe is being done here by the Aeronautical Development Agency, with the cooperation of Hindustan Aeronautics and the Indian National Aeronautical Laboratory. Empty weight has been set at 5,000 kg. (11,000 lb.) to provide the speed, sustained turn rate and agility required. Basic Designs Under study are three basic designs:

–Hybrid delta wing with separate tail control surfaces.

–Delta wing with canard winglets for improved control.

–Pure delta wing with all control surfaces located on the wing and a vertical fin.

”We are not considering at present a conventional wing and tail arrangement,” D. Y. Katti, project technical director, said.

A decision is yet to be made on how much composite material will be incorporated into the LCA. ”We have no choice but to use composite materials for weight control,” Harinarayana said. ”But we also have the problem of holding the cost of the LCA down. It has to be a cost-effective aircraft.”

Capabilities expected from the single-engine, single-seat aircraft include a beyond-visual-range missile system and a digital navigation/attack system, with the latter based, at least in part, on the Hindustan Aeronautics Darin nav/attack system being developed for retrofit into the Indian air force’s Sepecat Jaguar strike aircraft. Darin system components and some externally produced equipment are most likely to be melded into a nav/attack system for the LCA, Aeronautical Development Agency officials said. Imported Radar The aircraft’s radar, however, is almost certain to be imported. ”We probably have the indigenous capability of building such a radar,” one program official said, ”but it would be doubtful if we could get it ready in time and for the cost that an imported system would require.”

Definition phase is expected to last about a year and be followed by full-scale development, probably under contract to Hindustan Aeronautics. The prototype aircraft is expected to make its first flight in 1990. Hindustan Aeronautics Offers HTT-34 Trainers Bangalore–Hindustan Aeronautics, Ltd., has begun an international marketing campaign for its HTT-34 turboprop trainer aircraft after an Indian air force decision to push for development of a more advanced jet trainer.

The Indian air force is moving toward a two-trainer concept, with the present Hindustan Aeronautics HPT-32 piston-engine trainer to be followed by a new jet trainer that would be able to do basic and intermediate training missions. Air Staff Target 203, quoting specifications for the new trainer, already has been issued by the air force and Hindustan Aeronautics is conducting a feasibility study of the proposed aircraft.

This decision means it is unlikely that the HTT-34 will be ordered by the Indian military, but the company believes that the aircraft may have a future as a low-cost, relatively high-performance primary trainer with air forces that need an aircraft in the near future.

The HTT-34 prototype has been demonstrated in Nigeria and Ghana, and the Indian manufacturer has identified a number of other nations as potential customers, including Singapore, Argentina and Chile.

The aircraft is a turboprop derivative of the earlier piston-engined HPT-32. Hindustan Aeronautics also has studied the possibility of reengining the HPT-32 with the Allison 250-B17D turboprop, in effect converting them to HPT-34s, but this would be economically feasible only if new HTT-34s also were produced, company officials said.

Hindustan Aeronautics has two jet trainers in production or under development, the Kiran Mk. 2 and the Ajeet Trainer. The company earlier produced 200 Kiran Mk. 1/1A aircraft, which are based on the British Aerospace Jet Provost. The Kiran Mk. 2s are all new manufacture, not conversions, and incorporate structural changes from the Kiran Mk. 1 to provide for improved access for servicing requirements.

The Kiran Mk. 2’s instrumentation, avionics and engine are being produced in India by Hindustan Aeronautics. Early versions are being modified to improve cockpit cooling and an update program has been developed to keep the aircraft modernized.

The Ajeet Trainer is a two-seat version of the Ajeet strike fighter, designed to be issued to the front-line squadrons for proficiency and conversion training.

Desijatt,

Quote:
How much did India spend on the LCA project?

$1 Billion so far for the entire project. Compare it to the costs incurred with other projects. The Gripen, if I’m not mistaken, took a total of over $2.2 to 2.9 billion.

Unfortunately, gotta get our hands dirty once in a while, to the dregs,

From where you got $1B development figure? Kaveri alone required $4B.

Indina Seeks Aerospace Niche LCA’S ENGINE DESIGNED FOR EXTREME CONDITIONS

1,846 words
25 July 1994
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Pg. 45
Vol. 141, No. 4
English
Copyright 1994 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

BANGALORE — India’s aerospace industry is building a fighter engine designed for the operational extremes of South Asia–deserts in which temperatures regularly reach 115-120F and mountains where the runways are perched more than 2 mi. above sea level.

The 200 or more Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) the Indian government anticipates buying for its air force will be powered by the GTX-35VS Kaveri engine. It is under development by India’s Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE).

In India’s western deserts, U.S. and European engines traditionally designed for cooler climates suffer power losses, according to Kota Harinarayana, LCA program director. Designers also had their eyes on high-altitude operations along the northern borders with Pakistan and China. LCA officials contend the 12,125-lb. fighter, powered with a Kaveri, will be able to take off within 2,000 ft. from a 13,000-ft.-high airfield, with full internal fuel and two-thirds of its 8,000-lb. maximum weapons load.

U.S.-BASED ENGINE specialists say these goals are ambitious, but they could be met with a very light aircraft and a powerful engine. The LCA is one-third the size of a U.S.-built F-22, half that of the French Rafale and about equivalent to Sweden’s JAS-39 Gripen. In its small size, the Kaveri will resemble the General Electric F404-F2J3, a hot-weather version of the engine used in Sweden’s Gripen and the U.S. F/A-18.

The Kaveri is expected to produce just over 18,000 lb. of maximum thrust, allowing the LCA, with a clean takeoff weight of 18,700 lb., to maneuver at a sustained turn rate of 13-17 deg./sec. and an instantaneous rate of 30 deg., according to retired Air Marshal M.S.D. Wollen, a Bangalore-based aviation authority. He also pegs the maximum takeoff weight at 27,500 lb. and top speed at around 780 mph. Indian officials chose to develop the airframe and engine separately because “we didn’t want a new aircraft and engine at the same time,” Harinarayana said.

The Kaveri’s core will be tested in August by India’s Gas Turbine Research Establishment in Bangalore, program director R.C. Mishra said. The core engine includes the high-pressure compressor, combuster and the high-pressure turbine. A full system performance demonstration is scheduled to follow in September. The demonstration will additionally test the low-pressure spool.

The Indian government has asked for test and evaluation of the Kaveri engine through the U.S. Air Force’s Arnold Engineering and Development Center. A schedule of the prices and availability of the facility was returned to India, and U.S. officials are awaiting a reply, a USAF official said.

Mishra said production clearance has been slated for March, 1998. Western specialists suggest a production program would be underway in the 2003-5 period, with technical assistance provided by General Electric. GTRE is conducting the full engine development and also is manufacturing engine components, Mishra said. About 99% of the engine’s materials, constituting about 80% of its value, is produced in India.

India’s success or failure with the Kaveri is “not going to be a technical issue,” a U.S. aerospace industry official said. “It’s a major undertaking, but they are excellent technicians and capable of building a good engine.”

The main obstacle is expected to be the cost of developing a new engine, an amount likely to total several billion dollars, engine specialists agree. “Is the [Indian] government willing to make the investment?” the industry official said. “It’s going to be a money issue. Look at EFA. The EJ200 engine [for example, is] costing more than anyone had anticipated. Are the Indians willing to pay the price?” Indian estimates of the program’s cost already range from $1.5 billion to $3 billion. U.S. figures are even higher.

“FROM SCRATCH, building a super-reliable, low-maintenance engine is probably a 10-year, $3.5-4 billion project, and that may be low,” a USAF engine specialist said. “The F-22’s F119 engine [technology development] was kicked off in 1983 and it is still very firmly in development.”

Moreover, “you can build an airplane, but whether you can put everything in place to support it over the long haul is more difficult,” the USAF specialist said. “I personally think they’ll end up [selling LCA] with an off-the-shelf engine.”

Indian officials continue to insist, however, that they will pay the price for indigenous production to avoid a U.S. stranglehold on the supply of military equipment. The cutoff of F-16 sales and spare parts to Pakistan remains a constant reminder of the political price that goes along with accepting U.S. foreign military sales.

Kavari is designed to produce an engine thrust-to-weight ratio of 7.8, an Indian program official said. While most U.S. engines developed in recent years have thrust-to-weight ratios above 8, the Kaveri’s deceptively low rating for hot-day conditions does not mean the engine is old technology, a U.S. engine industry specialist said.

Harinarayana noted that extreme ambient conditions–due to high temperatures or high elevation takeoff–cause loss of thrust in traditionally designed jet engines. As air density decreases with an increase in altitude or temperature, less oxygen is pumped into the engine with each cubic foot of air. With this decrease, engine controls will automatically inject less fuel to maintain the desired oxygen-to-fuel ratio; thus, thrust drops.

To compensate, the Kavari’s advanced engine control is programmed to deliver a constant thrust–“flat rated”–up to the hot-day/high-altitude design points, the U.S. engine specialist said. The disadvantage of flat rating is that during sea-level/standard-day conditions, the engine’s thrust-to-weight ratio will appear deceptively low compared with some modern designs. In effect, under normal conditions the aircraft will be carrying a heavier engine than necessary.

“EACH EXTRA POUND of engine will probably mean 5 lb. additional airframe weight,” the specialist said. The extra weight will demand an increased lifting area which, in turn, will generate extra drag and reduce the aircraft’s optimum performance.

Indian designers said they are within official weight constraints, but that the aircraft is still somewhat heavier than the program’s internal goals. They also make the strong selling point that the advanced engine control system will help improve engine life by reducing the number of excursions, or temperature cycles, it must endure, Harinarayana said.

Engine life is a key unknown with Kaveri. A senior official with a U.S. aerospace engine company said high-quality engines made by Rolls-Royce, General Electric and Pratt & Whitney last for 4,000-5,000-hr. Far more disposable and less expensive Russian engines last around 400-500 hr. In fact, the Indian air force’s MiG-29 engine has had durability problems requiring engine removals for repair and overhaul as early as 150 hr., according to a report from the comptroller and auditor general of India. In their first try at a fighter engine, the Indians are more likely to produce an engine life resembling the Russians’, the senior aerospace official said.

TO FIGURE IN the later part of LCA flight testing, the Kaveri would have to be ready by 1998, the senior aerospace official said. Western engineers believe development of a high-quality engine would require a minimum of 10,000 hr. of factory/flight testing to ensure the necessary integrity for single-engine application.

Integration of the LCA’s airframe and the Kaveri engine also was designed with India’s operational extremes in mind. The initial sweep of the LCA’s double delta wing was designed to keep the shock wave ahead of the engine intake to avoid loss of airflow. In fact, the position of the wing’s leading edge above and slightly ahead of the engine inlet deflects additional airflow into the engine intakes, thereby producing better performance while maneuvering.

Program officials contend that even at a 20-deg. angle of attack, the engine will “see only about one-half to one-third of the AOA because of the wing deflecting” the airflow into the intake, an LCA program official said.

Designers also helped airflow into the intakes by moving them several inches from the fuselage, thereby removing the disruptive effects of the boundary layer. Instead, the boundary layer moves through a gap in the wing just behind the leading edge at the wing root and into channels that direct the air over and below the wing.

Harinarayana said there are plans to increase the Kaveri’s power by “perhaps 15-20%” through increases in fan pressure ratio and turbine entry temperature and the use of single-crystal turbine blades. There was an initial decision to use a turbine entry temperature that is less hot than contemporary engine materials are capable of enduring. As the engine matures, designers plan to increase the turbine entry temperature. The additional power produced would be used to boost the aircraft’s fuel load and range, point performance and/or ordnance loads.

Some U.S. engine specialists concur that “the engine is probably capable of significant uprating, especially if they lower the [hot-weather, high-altitude] design point a bit.”

Another long-range plan, about seven years away, is to begin developing thrust vectoring to further improve combat maneuverability, according to R. Krishnan, director of GTRE.

The LCA’s optimization for extreme hot-weather operations also includes a special new “high-pressure water separation system” that can supply cold air to the aircraft’s avionics with almost no humidity. That avoids much of the potential for corrosion, Indian officials said. This system will improve the LCA’s operations in monsoon rains and high humidity conditions.

INDIAN GOVERNMENT officials hope to cash in on the LCA/Kaveri’s export potential by attracting the attention of other nations whose air forces must operate in similar extreme conditions, particularly in the Middle East. The aircraft is supposed to operate on a routine basis in high sand and salt environments at temperatures over 113F. If foreign customers do not want the Kaveri engine, they may have the option of buying their LCAs with the General Electric F404-F2J3, Indian officials said.

The F404-F2J3 is a version of the engine custom-built by Volvo for installation in the single-engine Gripen. It has a more rugged fan, and its maximum thrust rating has been increased from the 18,000 lb. produced by the Gripen’s F404/RM12, for operations in an “Indian hot day,” a GE official said.

Photograph: The Indian air force wants both fighter and transport aircraft that can take off easily at altitudes of 12,000 ft. or more. Photograph: India has expressed interest in operating more MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s if Pakistan is allowed to field new F-16s

what help? Alenia was involved in manufacturing the wings of TD1. India at the time could not manufacture. TD1 wings are mostly metal. PV1 is the first of the three to have a substantial %age of composites inside it.

I think your indigenous myth is again going to burst 😀 😀 . I have on another one from Indiadefence.com that will further deflate the Indigenous myth.

Indina Seeks Aerospace Niche MULTIROLE LCA CUTS RADAR SIGNATURE

1,282 words
25 July 1994
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Pg. 42
Vol. 141, No. 4
English
Copyright 1994 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

BANGALORE — The linchpin of the Indian aerospace industry’s future is the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), a double-delta wing, single-engine aircraft that will serve both in the fighter and strike roles.

It will not have the stealth of an F-22, the payload of an F-15E or the agility of an early model F-16. But at one-third the size of the F-22 and half the size of the EFA or Rafale, the LCA will have the “smallest radar cross section of any non-stealth fighter aircraft in the world,” according to Kota Harinarayana, LCA program director for the Defense Ministry’s aeronautical development agency (ADA). The LCA also will offer an 8,000-lb. bomb load, aerial refueling, a service life of 3,000 hr. and the ability to operate from rough, semi-prepared fields or very high-altitude runways.

Indian officials claim the LCA will have other key selling points, including: — An operational reliability of 95% during a 1-hr. sortie. — Maintenance not to exceed 10 hr. per flight hour. — The capability of being rearmed and refueled in 15 min. — Ease of maintenance for operations from austere forward bases. The three crucial obstacles are developing software for the LCA’s advanced flight control system, designing and building an engine, and integrating and testing the various systems in the aircraft, a Washington-based U.S. Air Force official said.

“Even the experts can’t make an evaluation [of the LCA’s probability for success] yet,” the Air Force official said. “There is some risk and some potential.”

However, a U.S. engine specialist spelled out the basis for his optimism about the LCA. “The aircraft is about the size of the [Northrop] F-5, which has been the standard for many of the world’s air forces. It is small, agile and exhibits good overall performance, all at a reasonable cost. This could be a real winner.”

By trimming the engine to a sea-level/ standard-day instead of a tropical/high-altitude environment, Indian program officials “could provide even more performance,” he said. ``The only figure that seems low is design life. The 3,000-hr. figure equates to about 15 years of fighter aircraft service. [Nowadays] there are systems and engines that are scheduled almost that long before the first scheduled overhaul.”

While U.S. aerospace officials say the airframe life and maintenance to flight hour ratio is modest, Indian officials point out that the object is to produce a much improved aircraft to replace the MiG-21, not to build the most operationally and technically superior aircraft in the world.

THE INDIAN DESIGN team dropped the use of canards and a conventional tail to keep the aircraft’s radar cross section small, minimize birdstrike damage, reduce complexity and keep cost and size down. Canards would have necessitated an extra 3 ft. in fuselage length, increasing both weight and radar reflectivity.

By adopting an unstable design (which improves maneuverability but requires computer help to maintain stable flight) and an advanced flight control system, the delta wing design loses many of its penalties, program officials contend. In addition, the structural fatigue and ride quality problems associated with continued low-altitude operations are improved. Drag and energy loss during maneuvering–accomplished by altering the camber of the wing–also are minimized, they said.

“Once again the delta becomes an attractive proposition,” Harinarayana said.

The Indians are using Martin Marietta fly-by-wire hardware but developing the most expensive and risky part of the system–the computer software–themselves. They have written the programs in Ada and have adapted indigenously developed 32-bit computer technology.

However, time is closing in on the LCA effort, another U.S. Air Force official said. Between now and November, the flight control software must be verified, mated with the hardware and ground tested. The complexity of such systems has caused problems for much more experienced programs, as illustrated by the crashes of U.S. F-22 and Swedish JAS-39 prototypes.

Starting in February, 1995, the LCA’s flight control software is expected to be tested in the U.S. in a two-, possibly three-part program, a USAF official said. In the first phase, the software will be tested on board a Calspan Corp. NT-33 test aircraft. The testbed switches to the VISTA F-16 in part two. And, if necessary, a follow-up series will be conducted, also in the F-16. Meanwhile, consultations continue with Wright Laboratories Flight Control Dynamics Branch, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.

The design team also is working on adding more composites to reduce the aircraft’s weight further. The LCA currently is designed for 30% composite materials, with the structure able to sustain loads of from +8 to -3g, a program official said. This is down from +9 to -3.5g quoted in some LCA literature.

PENALTIES FOR the LCA’s small size, light weight and low cost are an aircraft that relies on a single engine, a turn rate of only 13-17 deg. per sec. (down from the original goal of 20 deg. or more) and the need to import the fibers to fabricate the composites, according to aerospace specialist M.S.D. Wollen, a retired IAF air marshal. The primary composite material is carbon fiber, with Kevlar adopted for the radome and brake parachute.

A much longer range project is development of an LCA carrier version equipped with a new undercarriage, tailhook and, possibly, some new structural materials to cut weight further and minimize corrosion. The communications suite would have data links compatible both with Army and Navy systems to ease joint operations.

Drawing on the lessons of Desert Storm and other military analyses, Indian officials predict upgrades will maintain the LCA’s present ordnance tonnage, but increase its efficiency with precision-guided weapons and greater range.

Instead of making room for a weapons operator on the LCA to operate a laser designator and other sensors, program officials plan to rely on an indigenously designed pilot’s associate system to decrease workload.

The standard LCA would replace hundreds of MiG-21s that now form the backbone of the Indian air force, as well as the MiG-23s and -27s. In the larger market (excluding the U.S., Europe, Commonwealth of Independent States and China), Indian officials contend the LCA could replace a number of aircraft types including the French-built Dassault Mirage-3 series and the U.S.-built Douglas A-4s and Northrop F-5s.

Subsequently, either an advanced version of the LCA or a successor aircraft could use the LCA-developed materials, technology, equipment and design tools. This LCA follow-on would replace the Hindustani Aeronautics Ltd.-built Jaguars and other strike aircraft.

JASJIT SINGH, director of India’s Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, said another key to keeping the Indian aviation industry profitable would be to “reopen the [HAL] manufacturing line for the MiG-21” for those countries that can afford neither Western-built aircraft nor the LCA, but still must modernize an aging air force.

The Indian government’s chief technology adviser, K. Santhanam, contends that LCA-derived technology could be transferred to both new MiG-21 production and modernization of those that will continue flying for another 10-15 years.

😀 is that why you know what SA and Italy have accomplished? your bigoted views just show despearation rather than any clear and concise arguement.

DID you check the companies websites? SA can even make HMD with eyeball tracking tech.

a far cry from an actual fighter aircraft. India has its program for a LAH too.

Maybe there small airforces does not need it. Remember LCA doesnot make any sense 😀 . LAH is not Rooviak

you wont see LCA over there either. nor anyhting else made by India.
yet Indian companies are making their mark in the military industries.
Indian can you post that article of BEL please?

BEL is not internatioanl company. Just on government subsidies. thats you wont see it there.

😀 hey guess what? LCA has been called a 5th gen aircraft by foriegn sources too. you cannot challenge that either. if you knew squat about aircraft you would know that generation is a very subjective term. call it whatever you want. the facts speak for themselves. but knowing your knowledge on the subject i doubt you see many differences.

LCA was called 5Th generation by Jounalist or EDITOR?

ROLF! what soviet help? India’s humble beginnings came from western sources. Russia’s help to India was limited to selling rights to assemble locally. not even TOT.
it has been only very very recently that India has aquired deep license from Russia ala MKI. compared to Isreal that got TOT and all the finanacial help it ever needed for its military projects. 😀 what a joke. you really dont check the facts do you?

Don’t go into this. Soviet were prepared as far back 1990 to help LCA and upgrades MIGs.

so it must be BS? 😀 yeah ok. i guess no country can ever establish itself unless they already have an export business going on. 😀 ofcourse they never went through this first step!
besides it hardly matters if they have proven export records. the aircraft themself in question dont follow your logic 😀

The question is of verification with foreign hands not export.

😀 ofcourse there is. but they must have been wasting all that money and energy for absolutely nothing/. you really do crack me up. all these things point to a rather bigoted and illitrate approach towards aircraft.

offcourse it doesnot make any sense as the title of the thread.

wrong figures. i think the website has got this mixed up. if the MTOW weight is given at 14tons then the empty is weight is 7.4 tons. which leaves 4.4 tons as the max payload. use some logic. there is no way a plane that small can carry 5300kg of payload. if you are not increasing the size or the fuel tank then where does the extra weight go? and how does it correlate to so much increase payload? the empty weight has to increase.
and yes i do know the difference between L and KG. thats why i said aprox. between x tons and y tons.

From where you got 7.4 ton empty weight for Gripen?. I can confirm 6.5ton empty wight and 14 ton Max takeoff weight from multiple sources in different countries. That is the point of verification.

that hardly qualifies as an arguement towards the F22.

Whynot. LM will not invest in any thing unless it is far superior to what they can built in the past.

but they seem to carry every other aircraft further 😀
there is nothing I or anyone else can do if you are not willing to accept the facts. and given your knowledge on the subject it is hardly surprising. ofcourse your logic must be right. IAF requirements are flawed, the design is flawed too. I guess they design the aircraft to have a payload of 4000kg to carry AAMs 😀 all those wind tunnel tests are crap too. DRDO apprently got too much money to throw around on a point defence fighter 😀
you really do crack me up.

There are many more example of waste of money in India. DRDO is not exception.

ROLFTMAO! yeah thats a good arguement. LCA is BS because you are the most intelligent person over here 😀 we can all see that by your posts. good going!

YES it is good going. I can flood this place with LCA articles but than you will runaway towards Harry for deleting them. 😀 😀

What an odd statement

The Israeli military industry, unlike India, can draw directly on American military industry, technology and research, while playing with a tremendous largesse of American dollars.

Give India or any country with even a semi-decent pool of scientists the same and you’d see such ‘superpowerdom’ overnight

I think you forget to mention Soviet help to India for past 40 years.

engine is a seperate entity from the fighter project. there is a reason why Kaveri is considered a different project from LCA.
engines are not in question here. nor is there any Kaveri spin off involved. the materials, contruction methods etc. have been applied to IJT and as a result it has been made available for flight testing in record time.

If Kaveri is separate from LCA then whats the point in relating other components to LCA project? Avionics can be separately developed just like Israeli, Italian, SA are doing.

no you dont. but these programs wouldnt have existed if the LCA program andt come along. and neither would have the composite industry, MMR, Kaveri etc etc etc.
you see LCA is building th ewhole infrastructure for aviation in India.
its not a simple minded “lets fly an aircraft” approach.

I don’t see the connection there. You don’t need the program in scale of LCA to develop some minor aviation components. I have given already the example.

i dont think LCA is very costly at all. for all it offers it is actually quite cheap compared to other contenders.

We don’t know the whole LCA cost and time lag is too long to calculate any thing correctly.

ROLF! its range exceeds the M2K’s. have you seen its AG payload? and its AA payload is similar to M2K/Mig29/Gripen etc. its nose size is the same as M2K too and can house a decent size radar.
by your logci gripen is not a capable aircraft either 😀 considering it looses about in just about every area of feild performance to LCA.

It is very premature to speculate on LCA range in actual combat load conditions like M2K. M2K can carry 6300KG. LCA hasn’t been tested on 1000KG. The same is the case with number of hardpoints.
Gripen has very large nose and can carry 5300KG in C/D version and is in service for past 7 years. It alone gives it huge advantage in development cycle. Gripen field performance has been independtly verified at 30 degree instantaneous turn and 20 degree sustain turn rate. No such thing exist for LCA.

😀 you keep beleiving that. meanwhile do some research on its payload, weapon configurations and avionics.

I have done the research on this. There is no radar with weopon test as yet.
So it is very premature to speculate on its weopon load and Radar ability.

The above article still ties in with Srbin points and yours as well. You have to understand the context- that is , if you are inclined to do so and dont merely look upon this as another “lets poke fun at xyz”.

The above money was mainly used for infrastructure- namely the ADA facilities and signing technical consultancy deals with various firms for the LCA programme to ramp up infrastructure. A portion of the funds were used for initial design work.

But the money for ACTUAL subsystem development WAS simply NOT there.

That was because the Indian economy was down the tubes. And R&D was put on the backburner.

Also as far as comparisons go – the present per unit price for the 40 LCA’s anticipated by HAL, including tooling costs and manufacturing facilities etc- are at 22 million $.

The bulk production will benefit from the above and they anticipate that prices may drop.

Secondly the article above is incorrect. The US did not help out with composites. Nor did we source extensive software from Dassault- we often made our own. One result was AUTOLAY, which ADA sold to Airbus Industrie recently for a few million bucks. Airbus acknowledged that the product was unique and was critical for building composite structures.

The other tools developed- PRANA, GITA etc.

We did use COTS s/w for design work- more on that later.

thanks for saving my Article otherwise this my second one being deleted?
So how you came at $22M figure or it is just another assumption? That $160M in today dollars can easily become $500M alone. LCA has been too long in development that it is difficult to calculate its actual per unit cost let alone system cost.
Regarding benefit to Indian industry. I don’t see any. Even UPG upgrade is
Russian. For MKI $3.3B licensing fees. Now don’t tell me that basic trainer is spinoff of LCA project. It is like saying K-8 is spin off from FC-1/J-10 project. The engine for the trainer is still Russian.
FC-1 is not an R&D project. It is the use of existing technologies and outsourcing to produce jet with minimum price.